Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

Right to protest ?

Anyone care to point out where it says that in the first ?

www.law.cornell.edu...

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

a reply to: Grambler

Probably a troll but who knows. That's the first post in this thread as far as I know defending this.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Quick Check In:

These are the predominate groups here,

Oath Keepers, Bikers for Trump, Proud Boys, 'The Fraternal Order Of the Alt-Knights', American Infidels, Alt-Righters

Oath Keepers plan on opening a Berkely Chapter,

lot's of fake reporting on Social Media

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Pretty sure UCB is a "State" run institution...which would seem to be government...

originally posted by: Kali74
Free speech she hasn't even been denied.

And there we disagree.

Also, I'm curious to know what some of you would think about a protest being postponed, everyone notified that the University wouldn't be able to accommodate the protestor's right to free speech just then, because Anne Coulter threatened to drive by and lob a few grenades into the crowd.

Would postponing and re-locating the protest be appropriate in that scenario? I mean you know, rather than arresting Ms. Coulter?

a reply to: XAnarchistX

Hey thanks for checking in man! That's about all I've seen on the livestreams too. Is it still a small handful of antifas? At some point somebody said there was like...three or four.

a reply to: Grambler

In other words, discriminating against race is bad, discriminating against political ideology is acceptable.

That is not what I said. I said there is no comparison.

I feel like I am damn near alone trying to stop a civil war!

Really? There's no need to be dramatic.

Well again, to you and all of the others on this thread downplaying this capitulation to violence, you have know credibility when actual right wing fascists start beating people and making threats to impede left wing speakers. These threats are perfectly acceptable, as long as the venue provides an alternative time and place.

I've never said violence or threats of violence are acceptable. I've only said that it appears her rights were not stepped upon.

If this means liberal speakers have to pay incredible amounts of money for security, and must speak at times and places where there will not be large crowds, that is fine by you.

Please quote me where I said any such thing.

This is going to happen, and yet you still blindly downplay the current situation because you think it benefits your team.

What team? Why are you projecting all of that nonsense on to me? Take your nonsense to someone who has actually said those things and don't waste my time.

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: DBCowboy

Good for Berkeley, it would have been embarrassing to have that kind of person and what she stands for, tarnish such a prestige school.Score a point for the good side.

At least you're honest in your desire for censorship.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Grambler

Probably a troll but who knows. That's the first post in this thread as far as I know defending this.

Could be. And I know this doesn't represent you or most of the others I am discussing this with on here.

But there is a large group, including many in academia, and the media (Heck I did a thread on The Guardian posting a video discussing how violence against conservatives can be effective) do feel that way.

My point is suggesting that Coulter or anyone capitulate to these threats is outrageous, suggesting this isn't a big deal because an alternative time was offered is outrageous, and saying violence is bad but Coulter sucks so this is no big deal is outrageous; and this thread has had all three of these opinions shown.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Thanks. Very interesting.

But this means that people on the Right were also threatening violence and protest if their demands were not met.

That sort of trashes the narrative of the "violent Left".

Cool. Narratives suck.

It's a sad turn of events. None of this would have happened if people were allowed to speak, and to hear said speeches, without threats of violence, threat and coercion.

She was offered the chance to speak. She declined, I guess.

By the way, the text you quoted did not state Berkely only offered her a different date/time because of threats they received.

Just saying.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis


But what evidence is there that Ms Coulter is planning on being anything but peaceful? Why is a rescheduling and resituating of her opportunity to exercise her right to free speech acceptable, but not a re-locating and rescheduling of the "peaceful" protest?

a reply to: Grambler

Simple question, do you think that the civil rights leaders, who were asked by authorities to speak at different times or places to avoid violence, were responsible when they and their followers got attacked because they refused to capitulate to that violence?

But Dr. King was in the streets himself, personally. He was jailed. Both he and his followers knew what they were dealing with. They went in with their heads held high - resolved to stand up for their rights

Yes, they knew. Gandhi knew. Most people who are involved in anything like this know. They were prepared. They trained for it - ahead of time. As did many other protestors against the Vietnam War

So, I'll say this again. Ann Coulter is no Dr. King. She is no Gandhi. Her cause is not being fought in the streets, she's not fighting for her own human rights or the right's of anyone else. She isn't putting herself at risk, and her entire desire is to be free to speak - where she wants, when she wants, how she wants

So - a simple question: how were her rights denied?

a reply to: Lab4Us

So you're okay with the violence and more people getting hurt.

originally posted by: neo96
Right to protest ?

Anyone care to point out where it says that in the first ?

www.law.cornell.edu...

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's right there. Right to peacefully assemble.

a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps but the way I see it their main argument is safety. Maybe it's more of a ethical thing. If I plan to speak at a place where I know violence will happen and people will get hurt because of my speech, would I feel right to continue?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Kali74
Free speech she hasn't even been denied.

And there we disagree.

You see it as Berkeley should move other speakers and do whatever they have to do to give Coulter the safest place they can on the day that she wants otherwise they are censoring her free speech.

I'm sorry but that's idiotic. And my opinion that it's idiotic doesn't make me a hater of free speech.

a reply to: introvert

PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY.

Is a constitutionally protect right.

Protest isn't,

Especially over a private individual that has no authority over someone else.

Like a gal named Coulter.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



I've never said violence or threats of violence are acceptable. I've only said that it appears her rights were not stepped upon.

But all of this happened to Coulter.

" have to pay incredible amounts of money for security, and must speak at times and places where there will not be large crowds, that is fine by you. "

And you say

Please quote me where I said any such thing.

So you don't feel Coulter going through this was her rights getting stepped on. In fact, you never suggested you had a problem with any of this at all. Instead you commented that her rights weren't stepped on.

a reply to: imwilliam

Because a formal speaking engagement is different than people just showing up. You can manage the speaking engagement much easier than you can manage people just showing up.